BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES

REDRESSAL COMMISSION, JALANDHAR.

Complaint No.249 of 2019

      Date of Instt. 05.07.2019

      Date of Decision: 08.08.2022

Rakesh Kumar aged about 45 years son of Shri Om Parkash resident of Village Sidham Mutsadi, Tehsil Phillaur, Distt. Jalandhar.

..........Complainant

Versus

1.       The Chairman, Punjab State Power Corporation Ltd. The Mall,         Patiala .

2.       Chief Engineer, Punjab State Power Corporation Ltd., Jalandhar.

3.       The Xen, Punjab State Power Corporation Ltd., Nakodar, Distt.        Jalandhar.

4.       Sub Divisional Officer-cum-Executive Engineer, Punjab State Power Corporation Ltd. Sub Divisional, Nurmahal, Distt.     Jalandhar.

….….. Opposite Parties

Complaint Under the Consumer Protection Act.

Before:        Dr. Harveen Bhardwaj             (President)

                   Smt. Jyotsna                            (Member)

                   Sh. Jaswant Singh Dhillon       (Member)                                

Present:       Sh. Tarlok Singh, Adv. Counsel for the Complainant.

                   Sh. K. L. Dua, Adv. Counsel for OPs.

Order

Dr. HarveenBhardwaj (President)

1.                The instant complaint has been filed by the complainant, wherein it is alleged that the complainant is running a Fast Food Shop under the name and style Shivam Fast Food, near Kalia Sweet Shop, Jandiala Road, Nurmahal, Tehsil Phillaur, Distt. Jalandhar. The complainant is earning his livelihood by running this Fast Food Shop and has no other business to run his family affairs. The complainant is the consumer of electricity supplied by the OPs and the OP No.1 is the main head whereas the OPs No.2 to 4 are working under the OP No.1 and they all are liable jointly and severally for the act of each other. The OPs are supplier of electricity to the consumer and in this way the present complaint comes under the jurisdiction of the Consumer Protection Act. The complainant took a shop on rent in November, 2015 from one Santokh Singh son of Mohinder Singh for ten years and started his business of fast food in the said shop. At that time one electricity connection bearing Account No.X54JC5420710L was already installed in the name of the owner of the shop and it was agreed between the complainant and his landlord that the electricity consumption bill shall be paid by the complainant. After starting the Fast Food Shop the complainant started paying the electricity bills regularly. The complainant paid about 3-4 bills and after that he noticed that the electricity bill is coming very exorbitant than the actual consumption of the electricity. The complainant noticed that the electricity meter was running even at the time of switched off of the main switch. Then the complainant filed an application before the OP No.4 on 04.04.2016 and the officials of the OP No.4 visited at the shop of the complainant and checked the electricity meter installed in the shop of the complainant and they also found that the electricity meter installed in the shop of the complainant is defective and is running continuously even after switching off the main switch and they also made endorsement with this regard on the application submitted by the complainant and gave one photo copy of the same to the complainant but inspite of the said endorsement the OPs did not take any step to remove the said defect and started sending the next electricity bills continuously by taken reading from the said defective meter. Whereas the complainant categorically mentioned in his application that he has received bill amounting Rs.15,510/- which was very exorbitant than the actual consumption of electricity and also mentioned in the application that the complainant is also have one Generator and he used to run the said Generator when the supply electricity is not made by the department. After receiving the application the OP No.4 removed the said defective meter and installed another old electricity meter but the said meter was having the same defect and it was also running without consuming the electricity and even after switching off the main switch. The complainant then demanded the report of the first removed meter from the OP No.4 who started putting off the matter on one pretext or the other and did not supply the copy of the report regarding the electricity meter removed by the OP No.4 and also refused to adjust the excess amount received by the OP No.4 due to the defective meter. Then the complainant filed another complaint on 12.08.2016 regarding the same defect in the second meter installed by the OP No.4. Then the officials of OP No.4 again visited at the shop of the complainant and inspected the said meter and found that the said meter is also running continuously without consuming the electricity and even after switching off the main switch. The said officials made endorsement with regard to the defect in electricity meter and handed over one photocopy of the same to the complainant. The OP No.4 then removed the said electricity meter also but did not issue any report of the said electricity meter and failed to adjust the excess amount received from the complainant due to the defective meter even on the repeated requests and demands of the complainant. When the officials of OP No.4 removed the second meter they verbally told the complainant that they are going to adjust the excess amount in the coming bills of the complainant and after that the complainant should pay the actual consumption of the electricity as per reading of the new installed meter. The complainant then found that the mater installed by the OP No.4 is in order and is working properly then the complainant started playing the electricity consumption bills as per the readings of the new meter. When the complainant received a bill amounting to Rs.1,62,000/- in which the OP added the balance of the last bills as per the reading of the previous two defective meters without adjusting the previous excess amount and without giving the reports of the said two defective meters. Not only this, the officials of OPs No.2, 3 and 4 disconnected the electricity connection of the complainant illegally and forcibly and due to this reason the complainant suffered with heavy loss. The complainant wrote number of letters to the OPs and requested them to restore his electricity connection, but all in vain. After receiving the amount of Rs.20,000/-, the OPs restored the connection of the complainant with the condition to deposit the rest of the amount within 2-3 installments and laid a condition that in case the complainant fails to deposit the balance amount, then the connection will be again disconnected and the said balance amount shall be added in the house hold electricity connection of the complainant. The officials of OP No.4 also obtained some blank signed cheques of different dates and out of which the complainant has deposited Rs.1,21,000/- till date. The complainant wrote number of letters to the OPs to supply the reports of the defective meters and approached personally number of times to the OP No.4. On 27.9.2017, the officials of the OPs No.3 & 4 came to the shop of the complainant for again disconnecting the electricity connection of the complainant and when the complainant asked them that why they have not supplied the reports of the defective meters till date then the OP No.3 told that the reports have been made and the complainant can collect the same from the office of OP No.4. At that time the OPs No.3 and 4 received the cheque of Rs.20,000/- from the complainant and left the spot by giving directions to the complainant that in case the complainant fails to deposit the balanced amount then the connection will be disconnected Then the complainant visited at the office of OP No.3 on 4.10.2017 and gave in writing with a request to issue the copies of the reports of the defective meters and to adjust the excess amount received from the complainant but the OP No .3 did not supply the same on the pretext that the same have not been signed by the concerned officers and it will be supplied later on. Due to the act and conduct of the OPs, the complainant suffered mental tension, agony, mental torture and financial loss and as such, necessity arose to file the present complaint with the prayer that the complaint of the complainant may be accepted and OPs be directed to issue the reports of both the defective meters and to adjust the excess amount which the OPs have received due to the defective reading of the defective meters. Further, the OPs be directed to pay a compensation of Rs.2,00,000/- for causing mental tension and harassment to the complainant and Rs.20,000/- as litigation expenses.

2.                Notice of the complaint was given to the OPs, who filed reply and contested the complaint by taking preliminary objections that no cause of action  arose to the complainant to file the present false and frivolous complaint. The present complaint is the misuse of the process of this Commission. The false and frivolous complaint has been filed with malafide intention, just to delay the legal payment of the legal outstanding amount of the bill in respect of the electricity consumed. The present complaint is bad for mis-joinder of necessary parties. The Chairman, The Chief Engineer, The XEN and the SDO are not the necessary parties. The Power Corporation is an autonomous body created under the provisions of the act and the same is only necessary party. There is no privity of contract between the complainant and the OPs. The connection is not in the name of the complainant and as such, he is not the consumer of the OPs. The electricity is being used for running the business and for commercial purpose, and as such, the complainant is not the consumer. The Commission has no jurisdiction to entertain and decide the present complaint. The present complaint is barred by the law of limitation. The false and frivolous complaint is liable to be dismissed with compensatory costs to the tune of Rs.10,000/- under the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act. On merits, it is admitted that the complainant is running a Fast Food Shop, but the other allegations as made in the complaint are categorically denied and lastly submitted that the complaint of the complainant is without merits, the same may be dismissed.

3.                Rejoinder to the written statement filed by the complainant, whereby reasserted the entire facts as narrated in the complaint and denied the allegations raised in the written statement. 

4.                In order to prove their respective versions, both the parties have produced on the file their respective evidence.

5.                We have heard the learned counsel for the respective parties and have also gone through the case file very minutely.

6.                The complainant has filed the present complaint on the ground that the meter installed in the premises, was running even at the time of switching off the main switch. On complaint of the complainant, the meter was changed and the changed meter was also found defective and was also running continuously even after switching off the main switch. The grievance of the complainant is that the exorbitant bill was being sent by the OP despite being defective. The complainant was never supplied the copy of the report of the ME Lab. The JE made the report on the complaint that the meter is running continuously despite the same being switched off. The complainant has made request to adjust the bill already paid by him, but to no effect.

7.                The contention of the OPs is that the complaint is not maintainable as the complainant is running the business for commercial purposes. It has been alleged that the meter was got checked from the ME Lab and the same was found ‘OK’. No defect was found in the meter. The change of the meter has been admitted by the OP, but it has been denied that the bills were being sent exorbitantly and not as per actual consumption. It has been alleged that for want of depositing of bill, the meter was disconnected, but thereafter on depositing certain amount, the connection was restored. It has been alleged that the complaint is not maintainable and request has been made to dismiss the complaint.

8.                This fact is not denied that the meter was changed twice on the request of the complainant. Ex.C-5 is the letter written by the complainant to the OP alleging that the bill of Rs.15,510/- sent by the OP is exorbitant as he is also using the generator for running his business. The complainant has made complaint regarding the connection Account No.X54JC5420710L and the meter no.01557427. On 01.04.2016 report was made on the complaint of the complainant that the site was inspected and it was found that the meter is running even after switching off the main switch. This report was made on 11.04.2016. There is another representation made by the complainant regarding the bill of Rs.30,460/- after the meter was changed. This letter has been proved as Ex.C-6. He has given the affidavit Ex.C-7. On the letter/representation Ex.C-6, the report was made by the OP on 16.08.2016 and it was found that the meter is running even after switching off the main switch. The particulars have been mentioned as account No.006050. Again on 13.02.2017, the complainant made the representation to the OPs that the OPs were requested not to send the exorbitant bill till the report of ME Lab comes, but the OP is sending the exorbitant bills. He has also sought the ME Lab report of April, 2016 and August 2016. Again, vide Ex.C-10 he made representation to the Xen alleging that when the OP came to him to disconnect the connection on 27.09.2017 and he made the payment of Rs.20,000/-, he was told that the reports of ME Lab have been received, but till date, the same reports are not being shown to him nor been supplied to him. Again on 01.04.2019, the complainant made representation to the SDO/OP raising the same allegations as were made by him in different letters and he had told the OP that he had already deposited Rs.85,000/- with the OP of different bills despite the fact that the meters were found defective. He also raised the allegations that he was informed that the meter was never sent to any ME Lab nor he was called by the officials while checking in the ME Lab rather he was told that the meters have been lost. The same letter was received by the OP on 02.04.2019, vide Ex.C-15. Again he sought the reports of ME Lab, vide Ex.C-16, but the reports were never supplied to the complainant. Ex.OP-1 shows that vide this letter, the meter was ordered to be changed and another document has been filed by the OP, which is Ex.OP-2. This is alleged to be report of ME Lab, but this seems to be incomplete report. The name of the complainant or the owner or the consumer has nowhere been mentioned in this document. There are two columns. In one of the column the meter has been shown to be ‘OK’ and in another column, the meter is shown to be ‘defective’. The number 01557427 is the account number of the complainant’s meter, but number 31958 is not clear as to whom it belongs. Even otherwise, there is a contradiction as on Ex.C-5 & Ex.C-8, there is a specific noting that the meters were running continuously despite the same being switched off and once the meters were running continuously, it cannot be said to be OK meter. The complainant was not supplied the reports of ME Lab despite his representations made number of times nor was informed about the checking in the ME Lab nor he was made aware as to when the meters were sent to ME Lab for checking. The report Ex.OP-2 also does not seem to be complete and it does not show the date of checking the meter in ME Lab and it does not show as to the meters were checked in the presence of the complainant or not or any notice was sent to the complainant or not. This document also does not depict as to whether it pertains to single meter or both the meters which were removed from the premises of the complainant.

9.                In Ex.OP-1 & Ex.OP-3, the name of the consumer has been mentioned as Rakesh Kumar, who is the complainant. He was using the electricity since 2015. One who uses or consumes the electricity can very well be said to be consumer. The complainant in his complaint has categorically stated that he is running the business of Fast Food Shop for earning his livelihood and he has no other business to run his family affairs. As per Section 2 (7) of Consumer Protection Act, 2019 defines the word ‘Consumer’ which is as under:-

          (7) “Consumer” means any person who,—

          (i)  buys any goods for a consideration which has been paid or         promised or partly paid and partly promised, or under any      system of deferred payment and includes any user of such goods other than the person who buys such           goods for consideration paid or promised or partly paid or partly promised, or under any        system of deferred payment, when such use is made with the         approval of such   person, but does not include a person who           obtains such goods for resale or for any commercial purpose; or

          (ii) hires or avails of any services for a consideration which has        been paid or promised or partly paid and partly promised, or   under any system of deferred payment and includes any          beneficiary of such services other than the person who  hires or         avails of the services for      consideration paid or promised, or    partly paid and partly promised, or under any system of deferred    payment, when such services are availed of with the approval of           the first mentioned person [but does not include a person who          avails of such services for any commercial purpose];

          Explanation:- For the purposes of this clause-(a) the      expression “Commercial purpose” does not include use       by a   person of goods bought and used by him exclusively for the           purpose of earning his livelihood, by means of self-        employment.

          (b) the expressions “buys and goods” and “hires or avails      any services” includes offline or online transactions through         electronic means or by teleshopping or direct selling or multi-      level marketing.

                   As per the definition, the meaning of commercial purposes in the provisions of Consumer Protection Act is one, who runs the business for profit and who runs the business for his livelihood and does not earn profits cannot be said to be running the business for commercial purposes. Thus, the complainant is consumer and the complaint in maintainable. So, accordingly, the complainant is entitled for the relief.

10.              In the light of above detailed discussion, the complaint of the complainant is partly allowed and OPs are directed to supply the reports of both the defective meters to the complainant and to adjust the excess amount which the OPs have received from the complainant due to the defective reading of the defective meters, in the future bills. Further, the OPs are directed to pay a compensation of Rs.10,000/- for causing mental tension and harassment to the complainant and Rs.5000/- as litigation expenses. The compliance of the order be made within 45 days from receipt of copy of this order. This complaint could not be decided within stipulated time frame due to rush of work.

11.              Copies of the order be supplied to the parties free of cost, as per Rules. File be indexed and consigned to the record room.

Dated          Jaswant Singh Dhillon    Jyotsna               Dr. Harveen Bhardwaj     

08.08.2022         Member                          Member           President